Dear Mr O'Leary

Re: Request for Information - Reference No: GAN/ACAHXP

Thank you for your request for information received by Manchester City
Council on 28th July 2016.

Please note that it may take up to 20 working days (25th August 2016) for
the Council to consider your request and to provide a formal response.

If this timescale needs to be extended to consider an exemption you will be
notified and kept informed.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Cath Cryer
Democratic Services
PO Box 532
Town Hall
Albert Square
Manchester
M60 2LA

Email: [Manchester City Council request email]
Website: www.manchester.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

Freedom of Information request - Ref: 178 GAN/ACAHXP

Thank you for your request for information, which was received by
Manchester City Council on 28 July 2016 and has been considered under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA).

You have requested:

1. Copies of all correspondence between Manchester City Council and
Manchester Airport concerning Arrow Cars, including the licensing by MCC of
Arrow Cars or its drivers.

2. Copies of all correspondence between Manchester City Council and Shiny
Sky Limited or Arrow Cars.

3. In particular, please include copies of any correspondence between MCC
and Manchester Airport or Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited relating to the
removal of licence plates issued by MCC from vehicles owned or operated by
Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited.

4. Copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers.

5. Finally, please provide copies of any reports since 1/1/2010 of the
City Solicitor/Monitoring Officer or any other council officer to the
council in relation to the provision of taxi/private hire services at
Manchester Airport.

It is estimated that the statutory cost limit of £450 (which is calculated
as being approximately 2.5 days of a council officer's time to determine
whether the Council holds the information, locate, retrieve and extract the
information) will be exceeded if the Council supplied the requested
information to you. If you require more information about the Council’s
Fees & Charges Policy, this may be downloaded from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/script...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

The FOI Act does not oblige us to comply with requests that exceed this
amount and therefore I am not able to comply with your current request.

If you are able to modify or narrow the scope of your request, it may be
possible to provide some information without exceeding the statutory limit,
although I cannot guarantee that this will be the case.

The Council would be able to provide information in relation to questions
1, 3, 4 and 5 within the statutory limit referred to above. If this
satisfies your request please let me know.

If you decide to modify/narrow the scope of your request, please note this
will be treated as a new request and dealt with in accordance with the time
limits specified in FOIA. I look forward to hearing from you. If I do not
hear from you by 20 September 2016, I will assume that you do not wish to
submit a revised request and will close my file.

Please note if you are not satisfied with this response you may ask for an
internal review. If you wish an internal review to be undertaken you should
contact the Democratic Services Legal Team, whose address is, PO Box 532,
Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2LA, email:
[Manchester City Council request email] in the first instance. A copy of
the Council’s access to information complaints procedure can be downloaded
from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/d...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review process, you
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you have the
right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545700
Fax: 01625 524510
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely
Andy Scragg
Principal Licensing Officer [Compliance]
Planning, Building Control & Licensing
Licensing Unit
Growth & Neighbourhoods

show quoted sections

Dear Gerry O'Leary

Re: Request for Information - Reference No: GAN/AD3GTD

Thank you for your request for information received by Manchester City
Council on 22 August 2016.

Please note that it may take up to 20 working days [ 20 September ] for the
Council to consider your request and to provide a formal response.

If this timescale needs to be extended to consider an exemption you will be
notified and kept informed.

Yours sincerely

Democratic Services
PO Box 532
Town Hall
Albert Square
Manchester
M60 2LA

Email: [Manchester City Council request email]
Website: www.manchester.gov.uk

|---------------------------------------------->
| |
| |
| "Gerry O'Leary" |
| <request-348523-364e0186@whatdothe|
| yknow.com> |
| |
| 22/08/2016 11:23 |
| |
| |
|---------------------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|
| | |
| | |
| To| |
| FOI requests at Manchester City Council <[Manchester City Council request email]> | |
| cc| |
| | |
| Subject| |
| Re: Freedom of Information request - Ref: 178 GAN/ACAHXP | |
| | |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|

Dear Manchester City Council,

Freedom of Information request - Ref: 178 GAN/ACAHXP

Thank you for your reply to my request for information in which you state
that
"The FOI Act does not oblige us to comply with requests that exceed this
amount and therefore I am not able to comply with your current request."

You add that, "The Council would be able to provide information in relation
to questions
1, 3, 4 and 5 within the statutory limit referred to above. If this
satisfies your request please let me know."

I wish to narrow the scope of my request by excluding question 2 in your
numerical list.

For clarity, and using your numerical scheme, I now request,

1. Copies of all correspondence between Manchester City Council and
Manchester Airport concerning Arrow Cars, including the licensing by MCC of

Arrow Cars or its drivers.

3. In particular, please include copies of any correspondence between MCC
and Manchester Airport or Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited relating to the
removal of licence plates issued by MCC from vehicles owned or operated by
Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited.
4. Copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers.
5. Finally, please provide copies of any reports since 1/1/2010 of the
City Solicitor/Monitoring Officer or any other council officer to the
council in relation to the provision of taxi/private hire services at
Manchester Airport.

Yours faithfully,

Gerry O'Leary

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

Freedom of Information request - Ref: 178 GAN/ACAHXP

Thank you for your request for information, which was received by
Manchester City Council on 28 July 2016 and has been considered under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA).

You have requested:
Related to Freedom of Information request - Ref: 178 GAN/ACAHXP

Thank you for your reply to my request for information in which you state
that "The FOI Act does not oblige us to comply with requests that exceed
this amount and therefore I am not able to comply with your current
request."

You add that, "The Council would be able to provide information in relation
to questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 within the statutory limit referred to above. If
this satisfies your request please let me know."

I wish to narrow the scope of my request by excluding question 2 in your
numerical list.

For clarity, and using your numerical scheme, I now request,

1. Copies of all correspondence between Manchester City Council and
Manchester Airport concerning Arrow Cars, including the licensing by MCC of
Arrow Cars or its drivers.

3. In particular, please include copies of any correspondence between MCC
and Manchester Airport or Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited relating to the
removal of licence plates issued by MCC from vehicles owned or operated by
Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited

4. Copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers.

5. Finally, please provide copies of any reports since 1/1/2010 of the City
Solicitor/Monitoring Officer or any other council officer to the council in
relation to the provision of taxi/private hire services at
Manchester Airport.

Having now considered this latest request it is still estimated that the
statutory cost limit of £450 (which is calculated as being approximately
2.5 days of a council officer's time to determine whether the Council holds
the information, locate, retrieve and extract the information) will be
exceeded if the Council supplied the requested information to you. If you
require more information about the Council’s Fees & Charges Policy, this
may be downloaded from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/script...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

The FOI Act does not oblige us to comply with requests that exceed this
amount and therefore I am not able to comply with your current request.

If you are able to modify or narrow the scope of your latest request, it
may be possible to provide some information without exceeding the statutory
limit, although I cannot guarantee that this will be the case.

The Council would be able to provide information in relation to questions
1, 3, and 5 within the statutory limit referred to above. However, having
now reconsidered question 4 which requests copies of any reports and notes
arising from inspections at Manchester Airport carried out by MCC's
licensing enforcement officers, the Council believes that this request is
so wide in its scope that the statutory cost limit would be exceeded. It
may assist if you were to divulge if there was a specific piece of
information that were looking for or information related to a specific
topic or time frame. Officer time could then be spent on locating and
retrieving that specific information rather than every piece of information
over a wide time frame and topic. Would you please modify/narrow the scope
of your request or consider removing this element of your request. If this
satisfies your request please let me know.

If you decide to modify/narrow the scope of your request, please note this
will be treated as a new request and dealt with in accordance with the time
limits specified in FOIA. I look forward to hearing from you. If I do not
hear from you by 14 October 2016, I will assume that you do not wish to
submit a revised request and will close my file.

Please note if you are not satisfied with this response you may ask for an
internal review. If you wish an internal review to be undertaken you should
contact the Democratic Services Legal Team, whose address is, PO Box 532,
Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2LA, email:
[Manchester City Council request email] in the first instance. A copy of
the Council’s access to information complaints procedure can be downloaded
from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/d...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review process, you
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you have the
right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545700
Fax: 01625 524510
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely
Andy Scragg
Principal Licensing Officer [Compliance]
Planning, Building Control & Licensing
Licensing Unit
Growth & Neighbourhoods

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

The Council will process your complaint as an internal review and respond
by 17 October. Details of the Council's complaints procedure can be found
here;

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/d...

Regards
Democratic Services

|---------------------------------------------->
| |
| |
| "Gerry O'Leary" |
| <request-348523-364e0186@whatdothe|
| yknow.com> |
| |
| 19/09/2016 12:11 |
| |
| |
|---------------------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|
| | |
| | |
| To| |
| FOI requests at Manchester City Council <[Manchester City Council request email]> | |
| cc| |
| | |
| Subject| |
| Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Manchester Airport correspondence | |
| | |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|

Dear Manchester City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Manchester City Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Manchester Airport correspondence'. (Ref: 178
GAN/ACAHXP)

On 28 July 2016 I requested information relating to correspondence between
Manchester City Council and other bodies in relation to Manchester Airport.

I included in my request the following:- “In addition, please provide
copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers.”

On 22 August I received a reply from the Principal Licensing Officer
[Compliance] which said that “The Council would be able to provide
information in relation to questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 within the statutory
limit referred to above. If this satisfies your request please let me
know.”

I then narrowed the scope of my request in line with the advice of Mr.
Scragg and have now been informed that:-

“...having now reconsidered question 4 which requests copies of any reports
and notes
arising from inspections at Manchester Airport carried out by MCC's
licensing enforcement officers, the Council believes that this request is
so wide in its scope that the statutory cost limit would be exceeded.”

I remind you that there is a duty to provide reasonable advice and
assistance to applicants approaching public authorities seeking information
and I draw your attention to the advice given on the ICO website, viz:-

“You should not... advise the requester on the wording of a narrower
request but then refuse that request on the same basis”
[https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

It should have been clear from its context that the information I requested
related only to any inspections carried out by officers authorised by
Manchester City Council into taxi/private hire services at Manchester
Airport.

It may help you to know that I have in the past made a request concerning
inspections conducted by Mr. Scragg at Manchester Airport on 23/24 January
2013 [Ref Number: NBH/LIC/TAXIS/972HKC ]. On that occasion I was refused
the information I requested on the ground that release of this information
was “likely to prejudice the law enforcement or other regulatory activity
carried out by the Council” and on the ground that the release of the
information was likely to “prejudice the commercial interests of the
Council or a third party.” I was later informed that the council no longer
held the information.

Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the
council provided a copy of the notes which I had requested.

For clarification, I do not repeat my request for information concerning
the inspection which was conducted in January 2013, and would consider it
satisfactory if the council were to provide the requested information in
relation to any inspections relevant to taxi/private hire services at
Manchester Airport which were conducted since the January 2013 inspection
mentioned above.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the
Internet at this address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

Yours faithfully,

Gerry O'Leary

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #348523 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

Re: - Request for Information – Manchester Airport correspondence - 178
GAN/ACAHXP-IR – Internal Review

Interim reply

Thank you for your email dated 19 September 2016 in which you requested an
Internal Review.

A response would normally be sent to you within 20 working days from
receipt of your correspondence. Unfortunately I have not concluded my
investigations and therefore will not be ready within this time limit.
Please accept my apologies for this delay.

As part of this investigation l have found that errors have been made in
relation to part 4 of your request. Whilst l do conclude that to locate,
retrieve and extract the requested information for this part of your
request would exceed the 18 hour time limit, you were not informed of
this in the Councils response dated 22 August. Due to this error we will
be providing you with this information subject to any exemptions. l
believe the Section.43 Commercial Interests exemption applies to some of
this information and I am currently considering where the balance of the
public interest test lies.

I will write to you again no later than 31 October with the full response
or details of progress of the internal review. Once again please accept my
apologies for this delay.

Yours sincerely,

Danielle Doyle
Licensing Unit Manager
The Neighbourhoods Service
Growth & Neighbourhoods

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O’Leary,

Re: - Request for Information – Manchester Airport correspondence - 178
GAN/ACAHXP-IR – Internal Review

I refer to your correspondence dated 19 September 2016 in which you raised
concerns with the response provided by Manchester City Council dated 16
September. As a result the Council has carried out an Internal Review into
the handling of your Request for Information.

Background
In your original request, which was received on the 28 July 2016, you asked
for the following information:

1. Please provide copies of all correspondence between Manchester City
Council and Manchester Airport concerning Arrow Cars, including the
licensing by MCC of Arrow Cars or its drivers.

2. Also, please provide copies of all correspondence between Manchester
City Council and Shiny Sky Limited or Arrow Cars.

3. In particular, please include copies of any correspondence between MCC
and Manchester Airport or Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited relating to the
removal of licence plates issued by MCC from vehicles owned or operated by
Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited.

4. In addition, please provide copies of any reports and notes arising from
inspections at Manchester Airport carried out by MCC's licensing
enforcement officers.

5. Finally, please provide copies of any reports since 1/1/2010 of the City
Solicitor/Monitoring Officer or any other council officer to the council in
relation to the provision of taxi/private hire services at Manchester
Airport

On 22 August the Council refused your request as it exceeded the statutory
cost limit of £450 and you were asked if you would like to modify/narrow
your search. We advised we may be able to supply the requested information
in relation to points 1,3, 4 & 5. You responded on 22 August and said:

I wish to narrow the scope of my request by excluding question 2 in your
numerical list. For clarity, and using your numerical scheme, I now
request,
1. Copies of all correspondence between Manchester City Council and
Manchester Airport concerning Arrow Cars, including the licensing by MCC of
Arrow Cars or its drivers.
3. In particular, please include copies of any correspondence between MCC
and Manchester Airport or Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited relating to the
removal of licence plates issued by MCC from vehicles owned or operated by
Arrow Cars or Shiny Sky Limited.
4. Copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers.
5. Finally, please provide copies of any reports since 1/1/2010 of the City
Solicitor/Monitoring Officer or any other council officer to the council in
relation to the provision of taxi/private hire services at Manchester
Airport.

On 16 September, having reconsidered your request fully, we confirmed we
would be able to supply you with the information in relation to points 1,3
& 5 but had taken the time to consider the request in relation to point 4
further and asked you for further modification in relation to point 4.

On 19 September you submitted an Internal Review and stated:

I included in my request the following:- “In addition, please provide
copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers.”

On 22 August I received a reply from the Principal Licensing Officer
[Compliance] which said that “The Council would be able to provide
information in relation to questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 within the statutory
limit referred to above. If this satisfies your request please let me
know.”

I then narrowed the scope of my request in line with the advice of Mr.
Scragg and have now been informed that:-

“...having now reconsidered question 4 which requests copies of any reports
and notes arising from inspections at Manchester Airport carried out by
MCC's licensing enforcement officers, the Council believes that this
request is so wide in its scope that the statutory cost limit would be
exceeded.”

I remind you that there is a duty to provide reasonable advice and
assistance to applicants approaching public authorities seeking information
and I draw your attention to the advice given on the ICO website, viz:-

“You should not... advise the requester on the wording of a narrower
request but then refuse that request on the same basis”
[https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

It should have been clear from its context that the information I requested
related only to any inspections carried out by officers authorised by
Manchester City Council into taxi/private hire services at Manchester
Airport.

It may help you to know that I have in the past made a request concerning
inspections conducted by Mr. Scragg at Manchester Airport on 23/24 January
2013 [Ref Number: NBH/LIC/TAXIS/972HKC ]. On that occasion I was refused
the information I requested on the ground that release of this information
was “likely to prejudice the law enforcement or other regulatory activity
carried out by the Council” and on the ground that the release of the
information was likely to “prejudice the commercial interests of the
Council or a third party.” I was later informed that the council no longer
held the information.

Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the
council provided a copy of the notes which I had requested.

For clarification, I do not repeat my request for information concerning
the inspection which was conducted in January 2013, and would consider it
satisfactory if the council were to provide the requested information in
relation to any inspections relevant to taxi/private hire services at
Manchester Airport which were conducted since the January 2013 inspection
mentioned above

Findings

As part of this Internal Review I have reconsidered your original Request
for Information and the Council’s response.

In reviewing your request it has been found that:

The question asked of the Council, annotated by us as question 2, please
provide copies of all correspondence between Manchester City Council and
Shiny Sky Limited or Arrow Cars, is a question which is widely drawn in
nature, with no stated cut off point in time and as a result encompasses
thousands of documents that the city council holds. The decision to reject
your request therefore appears to be more than reasonable as the time
limits imposed on providing this information would be significantly
exceeded. I believe that the request to narrow the scope of your request
in the circumstances to be a reasonable response. The Council took the
view at that time that the information requested in all other questions
could be provided within the statutory timescales.

All questions were therefore re-submitted excluding the one referred to
above. As work began to provide the response to these questions it was
then realised that the following question, annotated by us as Question 4,
Copies of any reports and notes arising from inspections at Manchester
Airport carried out by MCC's licensing enforcement officers, was also going
to create difficulties in respect of providing this information within the
statutory time limits and you were informed of this fact.

As part of this investigation l have found that errors have been made in
relation to Question 4 of your request. Whilst l do conclude that to
locate, retrieve and extract the requested information for this part of
your request would exceed the 18 hour time limit, you were not informed
of this in the Councils response dated 22 August. Due to this error we
have provided you with this information with the exception of the draft
agreement' relating to concession to provide passenger transport services
at Manchester Airport plc ('Draft Agreement'). Please find attached
documents in response to original questions annotated by us as 1,3, 4 & 5.

You will appreciate that FoIA is applicant and purpose blind. The main
consideration is whether or not the requested information is capable of
release to the world at large, regardless of the motives or interest of the
person or organisation making the actual request.

After carefully considering the information contained within the Draft
Agreement I am satisfied that the information you are seeking is exempt
from disclosure under the following exemptions and should not be released
into the ‘public domain’. I consider that a number of exemptions are
engaged:

Section 41 - Information provided in confidence
The Draft Agreement was provided to the Council in circumstances giving
rise to a duty of confidence. The exemption under section 41 of the FOIA
states as follows:

41.— Information provided in confidence.

(1) Information is exempt information if—

(a) It was obtained by the public authority from any other person
(including another public authority), and

(b) The disclosure of the information to the public (otherwise than
under this Act) by the public authority holding it would constitute a
breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.

I find that the Draft Agreement was disclosed by Manchester Airport to
Manchester City Council (MCC) on a confidential basis solely for the
purpose of allowing the Council in its capacity as private hire licensing
authority for the Manchester area, to check whether there was anything in
(or absent from) the Draft Agreement or the proposed set-up more generally
which contradicted the MCC private hire licensing conditions and/or any
relevant legislation.

Correspondence between Manchester Airport and the Council was provided in
confidence and therefore falls under this exemption, which is not subject
to the public interest test.

Section 43(2).— Commercial Interests

Section 43.— Commercial Interests

(1)Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade

secret.

(2)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act

would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of

any person (including the public authority holding it).

(3)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent

that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to,

prejudice the interests mentioned in subsection (2).

This exemption is a class-based exemption and subject to the public
interest test.

In responding to your request the information has been considered for
disclosure. However the Council has been advised by Manchester Airport and
Shiny Sky Limited T/A Arrow Cars that the release of the Draft Agreement
would be likely to prejudice their commercial interests in relation to the
negotiation of similar agreements. Manchester Airport also advised that
release could impact upon their ability to negotiate future liability
positions and terms with other concessionaires and third parties at the
airport, including any successor to Shiny Sky Limited T/A Arrow Cars.

When assessing whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose the
information to you, despite the exemption being applicable, we took into
account the following factors:

in assisting the public to understand why a decision was made
in promoting accountability and transparency

However, it must balance these considerations against:

the risk of prejudice to the commercial interests of Manchester
Airport and Shiny Sky Limited T/A Arrow Cars if the requested
information were to be disclosed to the world at large under the
Freedom of Information Act.
the effect that disclosure of commercially sensitive information
might have in discouraging companies from seeking advice from the
Council because of fears that the disclosure of such information
could damage them commercially
the inherent public interest in ensuring that competition is not
distorted and that companies are able to compete fairly and in
ensuring that there is fair competition.

Having considered the factors for and against disclosure the Council
believes the balance of the public interest test lies in favour of
maintaining the exemption. The reason for this conclusion is that third
parties should not feel at risk that commercially sensitive information
which is passed to the Council in confidence and is not freely available
could be released into the public domain. If this were to happen,
particularly where the commercial activity is conducted in a competitive
environment, competitors of the third parties in question would be able to
gain an unfair advantage thereby prejudicing the business and financial
interests of Manchester Airport and Shiny Sky Limited T/A Arrow Cars and in
turn harm their business. This cannot be in the public interest.

Where information has been determined to be third party personal data, this
has been redacted in accordance with the following exemption:

Section 40(2) – Third Party Information

40.— Personal information.

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is
also exempt information if—

(a) It constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection
(1), and

(b) Either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is—

(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs
(a) to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a
member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene—

(i) Any of the data protection principles

A public authority can only disclose personal data in response to an FOI
request if to do so would be fair, lawful and meet one of the conditions in
Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (and in the case of sensitive
personal data, a condition in Schedule 3). Upon review of the requested
information, I am satisfied that it includes personal data of third parties
and that releasing this data would not be fair or lawful. This exemption is
not subject to the public interest test

This response constitutes the Council’s response to the internal review of
your request for information. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of
this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the
Information Commissioner for a decision.

The information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 745
www.ico.org.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Danielle Doyle
Licensing Unit Manager
The Neighbourhoods Service
Growth & Neighbourhoods
Manchester City Council

(See attached file: img-X13134033-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X13122413-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X13130056-0001.pdf)(See
attached file: img-X13130338-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X13130544-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X13130645-0001.pdf)(See
attached file: img-X13131551-0001.pdf)
(See attached file: img-X13131700-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X13131801-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X13131904-0001.pdf)(See
attached file: img-X13132004-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X13132108-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X13132211-0001.pdf)(See
attached file: img-X13132429-0001.pdf)
(See attached file: img-X13132531-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X13132635-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X13132738-0001.pdf)(See
attached file: img-X13132823-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X13132921-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X13133821-0001.pdf)(See
attached file: img-X13133920-0001.pdf)
(See attached file: img-X26142540-0001.pdf)(See attached file:
img-X26142735-0001.pdf)(See attached file: img-X26143054-0001.pdf)

(See attached file: img-X27100947-0001.pdf) (See attached file:
img-X27101119-0001.pdf) (See attached file: img-X27101218-0001.pdf) (See
attached file: img-X27101310-0001.pdf)

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

Freedom of Information request - Ref: 178 GAN/ACAHXP-IR

In relation to your request for "copies of any reports since 1/1/2010 of
the City Solicitor/Monitoring Officer or any other council officer to the
council in relation to the provision of taxi/private hire services at
Manchester Airport", the Council has identified some further information
that should have been released to you. I apologise for the omission made.

Please find attached the report made to the Licensing and Appeals Committee
dated 21 March 2011.

(See attached file: Licensing and Appeals Committee 21 March 2011.pdf)

If you have any questions or would like any further information please
contact me.

Yours sincerely
Narinder Harvey
Complaints and Information Compliance Officer
Growth and Neighbourhoods Directorate
Performance and Intelligence
Manchester City Council
PO Box 532, Town Hall
Manchester, M60 2LA

[email address]
0161 234 3012

It’s easier to request a service or report a problem online at
www.manchester.gov.uk/youraccount

Here are some of the benefits of registering your own account:

show quoted sections

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

Ref: GAN/ACAHXP- ICO FS50654658

Further to your recent Freedom of Information request dated 19 September
2016,and the decision of the Information Commissioner dated 27 April 2017,
please find attached the Draft Agreement between Manchester Airport Group
Plc and Shiny Sky Limited T/A Arrow Cars, that was previously withheld from
disclosure.

Please note that the Council has been informed that the attached document
is a very early draft of the agreement, and the contents do not necessarily
reflect the final terms agreed between the parties.

On 25 April 2017 I sent you the report, "Application for an exemption from
the current Council policy relating to the signage that is required to be
displayed on licensed private hire vehicles", considered by Licensing and
Appeals Committee on 21 March 2011. The Council has now sent you all
the information it holds in response to the FOI.

Please do contact me if I can be of any further help.

Yours sincerely
Danielle Doyle
Licensing Unit Manager
Planning, Building Control & Licensing
Growth & Neighbourhoods
Manchester City Council

show quoted sections

Dear Mr O'Leary

Ref: GAN/ACAHXP- ICO FS50654658

Further to your recent Freedom of Information request dated 19 September
2016,and the decision of the Information Commissioner dated 27 April 2017,
please find attached the Draft Agreement between Manchester Airport Group
Plc and Shiny Sky Limited T/A Arrow Cars, that was previously withheld from
disclosure.

(See attached file: Man AirportPrivate Hire CA draft. jh amends v1.doc)

Please note that the Council has been informed that the attached document
is a very early draft of the agreement, and the contents do not necessarily
reflect the final terms agreed between the parties.

On 25 April 2017 I sent you the report, "Application for an exemption from
the current Council policy relating to the signage that is required to be
displayed on licensed private hire vehicles", considered by Licensing and
Appeals Committee on 21 March 2011. The Council has now sent you all
the information it holds in response to the FOI.

Please do contact me if I can be of any further help.

Yours sincerely
Danielle Doyle
Licensing Unit Manager
Planning, Building Control & Licensing
Growth & Neighbourhoods
Manchester City Council

show quoted sections